荀子〈性惡〉文獻真偽之芻議

A Discussion on the Authenticity of Xunzi's“XìngÈ”Text

荀子主張「性惡」，因此一標籤，被視為是儒家「異端」，並被文廟除名，歷來備受批評與冷落。隨著清代考據學興起，以及現代學術的進展與演變，荀子哲學思想逐漸為學界所重視，對《荀子》一書文獻之真偽，也成為學界持續爭論的主要論題之一。其中，〈性惡〉乙篇最受到質疑與否定。以《荀子集注》著稱的王先謙，面對「性惡」而曲解說：「余謂性惡之說，非荀子本意也。」學者雖見及荀子學思的價值，然在揚孟抑荀的流風之下，欲彌縫孟子「性善」與荀子「性惡」，於是出現排除〈性惡〉非荀子親作，荀子主張「性樸」而非「性惡」之說。論者從文獻的傳承未見荀子後學援引申論、「性惡」與《荀子》其他篇章衝突矛盾，以及荀子思想體系內部衝突等尋覓證據，以證己說；宣稱荀子主張「性樸」而非「性惡」之說，更是蔚為風潮。多數學者依然保留在傳統的認知下，〈性惡〉乙篇為荀子親作，但反駁異說力道並不充足。關鍵處在於，荀子所論「性惡」其意為何？若不釐清荀子論述的「性」、「善」、「惡」等關鍵語辭的意義，便無法擺脫自清代以來欲彌縫孟子「性善」與荀子「性惡」之魔咒。本文先行探究二千年來學者均認定「性惡」為荀子哲學的核心，次論〈性惡〉篇非荀子親作或後世偽作之說，同時提及近來風行的欲以「性樸」取代「性惡」的理據，最後提出就劉向校定的嚴謹性與可靠性、「性惡」說的意旨與文本脈絡，以及「性」、「惡」、「善」等關鍵語辭的可能意義三方面，為荀子〈性惡〉辯誣洗冤，還其是荀子學思中非常真實且是重要代表性的一篇論述。

Xunzi’s doctrine that“XìngÈ”性惡has long been regarded as a heterodox view within Confucianism, leading to his exclusion from the Confucian temple and centuries of criticism and neglect. With the rise of evidential scholarship (kǎo jùxué)考據學in the Qing dynasty and the subsequent development of modern academic research, Xunzi’s philosophical thought has gradually regained scholarly attention. The authenticity of the Xunzi text has become a subject of ongoing debate, with the chapter“XìngÈ”being the most questioned and rejected. Even Wang Xianqian王先謙, renowned for his Xunzi Collection of Explanations荀子集解, misinterpreted the doctrine of xìngè, stating,“I argue that the theory of xìngèis not Xunzi’s original intention.”Although some scholars have recognized the value of Xunzi’s thought, under the enduring influence of elevating Mencius while suppressing Xunzi, attempts to reconcile Mencius’s“xìng shàn”性善with Xunzi’s“xìngè”have led to the claim that the“XìngÈ”text is not Xunzi’s own work and that Xunzi actually advocated a“xìng pú”性樸rather than a xìngè. Proponents of this view marshal evidence from three areas: the absence of direct citations of the“XìngÈ”text in the works of Xunzi’s later followers, contradictions between the“XìngÈ”text and other chapters of the Xunzi, and internal inconsistencies within Xunzi’s own philosophical system. The claim that Xunzi taught a“xìng pú”rather than a“xìngè”has even become a trend. Nevertheless, most scholars remain within the traditional view that the“XìngÈ”text was indeed written by Xunzi himself, though their refutations of opposing views have been insufficient. The crux of the matter lies in the meaning Xunzi assigns to“human nature is evil.”Without clarifying Xunzi’s definitions of key terms such as“xìng”性,“shàn”善, and“è”惡, it is impossible to escape the spell cast since the Qing dynasty by attempts to reconcile Mencius’s doctrine of shàn and Xunzi’s doctrine ofè. This article first examines the twothousand- year consensus that“xìngè”is central to Xunzi’s philosophy. It then discusses arguments that the“XìngÈ”text was not written by Xunzi or was a later forgery, while also addressing the recent trend of replacing“xìngè”with“xìng pú.”Finally, from three perspectives—the rigor and reliability of Liu Xiang’s劉向recension of the Xunzi, the meaning and textual context of the doctrine of xìngè, and the possible meanings of the key terms“xìng”,“shàn”, and“è”—this article defends the authenticity of the“XìngÈ”text, restoring it as a genuine and significant representative discourse within Xunzi’s thought.